Chapter 3 was interesting and seemed mainly a setup for further sections. Although Harris' description of three types of enemy and the philosophical discourses on them seemed superficial, I don't see how he could have done much better in an only ten page summary (Harris himself admits that he has simplified the theories immensely).

The real interesting part of the chapter comes at the end when Harris is discussing Hunnington's 'clash of civilization'. In criticizing Hunnington, Harris correctly points out that other non-Western civilizations could also assert the universalism of their civilization. If this assertion of universal relevance is inherent in any civilization, as Harris points out, then conflict becomes inevitable. Harris then states, if this is the case, "It follows that the only possible solution would be for one of the civilizations to triumph and crush all the others." This is followed on the next page by the question, "What happens if these other civilizations continue to assert their own style of universalism more and more insistently, just as the West was deciding to conserve its own dwindling strength?"

Although Harris does not say it, I read an implication here that he does believe that this conflict is to some degree inevitable and that the West (i.e., the United States) needs to act now while we are still the dominate military and economic power in the world.

I must admit, I was waiting for this chapter to dive into the deeper material, but it seems to just be building the groundwork. I'm in agreement with you on that Mike. I'm reminded by this chapter that I do need to read my copy of Clash of Civilizations.

There was one thing I did not understand, it is a remark on page 46 about "Bernard Lewis's triumphalism." I've read some of Lewis's stuff, and I think that comment really came out of left field. Did anybody understand it?

I never read Lewis, but after reading your post, I looked him up and got a general idea about his views.

Lewis is mostly focused on Christianity and Islamic religious superiority and conquest (conversion and erradicating the infidel). I can see how Harris was trying to use this on those terms, fashioning it in a more political as opposed to religious paradigm.

I may be off because I do not know Lewis inside out, but this is what my mind came up with based upon my limited research.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

I came to get down, I came to get down. So get out ya seat and jump around - House of Pain

I've read some Lewis, a book and a bunch of articles and what you are saying seems like the Said Orientalism stereotype and unfitting with Lewis's writings and what he has said in interviews. Lewis doesn't strike me as triumphal so I guess I'll just have to hope Harris shows up so I can ask him in person.

can someone help me out? Harris claims there are three theories of the enemy, 1) the rational actor theory, 2) the enemy as the overbearing and irrational person who insists on having his superior status recognized and 3) Marx's theory. But after reading the Marx's enemy section three times, I don't see the 'enemy' theory. Is Marx's enemy the economic class of which you are not a member?

Liberty and Freedom are complex concepts. They go back to religious ideas of Free Will and are related to the Ruler Mystique implicit in absolute monarchs. Without absolute monarchs patterned after the Old Gods and ruling by the grace of a belief in religious indulgence, Liberty and Freedom would never have gained their present meaning. These ideals owe their very existence to past examples of oppression. And the forces that maintain such ideas will erode unless renewed by dramatic teaching or new oppressions. - from Frank Herbert's Heretics of Dune

Decry oppression all you want, I shall decry it with you, but without it, there is no basis for freedom.

Marx's theory would be more in keeping with the desire for equality than superiority, especially with the use of oppression as many of those who later latched on to his ideas liked to use oppression as if everybody is oppressed.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum

BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.